Unipoker

It seems impossible these days to pick up any publication pertaining to gaming without reading at least one article preaching about the necessity of uniform, standardized rules. Indeed, I usually find myself reading about their dire necessity, as if this is a goal that better be achieved by next Tuesday, lest anarchy and looting break out in the streets by Wednesday. Frankly, I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I can empathize with the desire for a stable environment in the world of poker, as well as with the goal of eliminating confusion. On the other, I get nervous at the suggestion that all diversity in the area of game structure, procedure, and "local rules" must be rooted out and subordinated to some Master Plan that will govern the entire poker universe.

But the clarion call for such uniformity (conformity?) is being sounded ever louder all the time. Players should be secure in the knowledge that no an utterly arbitrary and random element, what difference does it make which random element you go with?

Any movement that overstates its case runs the risk of not being taken seriously, and many advocates of standardization are guilty of this. Recently I heard someone at the poker table deliver a lengthy lecture about the "overwhelming confusion" caused by the variations of kill-pot action. In some rooms, you see, the killer has last action before the flop; in others, he acts in turn. So there you sit, playing a kill game in a room that's new to you, and the first time someone posts a kill blind, you lean forward and ask the dealer, "Excuse me, can you tell me when the killer acts in this house? Last, or in turn?" There, was that really so difficult? Overwhelming confusion? C'mon – let's be serious.

But here's the funny thing: While adamantly making his pitch for uniformity, a few things happened at the table that you'd think would have merited his attention, yet didn't. Several times during a hand, a couple of buddies began speaking in a foreign language, and there was reason to believe they weren't discussing baseball. Twice, there were brazen violations of the one-player-to-a-hand rule, and at least one of those times plainly cost someone a pot. Yet, he didn't register an ounce of indignation regarding these transgressions. It made me wonder just how literally he takes the idea of "on the same page." I mean, if someone were to wave a magic wand and suddenly every poker rulebook in America became identical, what exactly is it that would be accomplished? What's the point of uniform rules – unless they're uniformly enforced? We'd all be on the same page, but only on paper.

It just doesn't make sense to me to lobby for intercardroom uniformity while standardization within many cardrooms is a goal yet to be achieved. In my opinion, what is needed to make any set of rules and procedures viable is standardized training in their implementation, and standardized written testing that covers rules, procedures, and proper decisions in various situations. Then, let's talk …

Please send questions or comments to [email protected].